Jari, > I wanted to provide some background on this question. > > As you recall, a BOF was held on EXPLISP in Dublin. In Minneapolis we > had a number of WGs and the RRG talk about LISP. Implementation and > small scale deployment is going on. The RRG is still continuing its > work, and they are looking at a number of different solutions, including > map-and-encap, translation, host changes, and combinations thereof. I do > not want to preempt the RRG's efforts and at this time we are NOT > considering any IETF standards in this area. We are, however, > potentially interested in working groups targeting experimental > specifications so that we can get more experience about the various > technical solutions, different people can build systems that work > together, etc. Some of you may be familiar with the HIP effort; they > also had a working group that produced experimental RFCs to complement > the more research oriented work in the IRTF HIP group. > > My interpretation of the outcome of the first BOF was that the topic was > very interesting for the people in the room but that at the time they > felt it was more in research than IETF scope. There were also technical > debates. That being said, we did not spend enough time on the WG > formation question. So I did not view the results as final. > Nevertheless, several attempts were made in the autumn to create some > form of a subgroup in RRG to do this work. However, the proponents were > only interested in a working group. > > So what is happening now is what we did with many other BOF efforts as > well. We got feedback in the BOF, there's been further discussion, and > work on various fronts has progressed. Its time to complete the > discussion about the fate of this effort. We need to see if additional > information or further changes can result in a WG proposal that is > acceptable to the community or not. If we can reach a decision on the > list, fine, if not I will reserve a second BOF slot for the discussion. > I am mindful of the fact that the list discussion may not reach quite > the same crowd as a f2f meeting, so unless we get a fairly strong signal > in the list we probably need to meet as well. > > But back to the proposal. In particular, I would like to know how people > feel about this work being ready for an (Experimental) IETF WG, what the > scope should be, whether the charter is reasonable. And if not, what > would make it so.
The question to ask is whether LISP is an appropriate solution to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006 Routing and Addressing Workshop. In answering this question we need to keep in mind that such techniques as (a) caching routing and forwarding information, (b) use of separate mapping system for Loc/ID mapping, (c) relying on probing for determining path feasibility are essential/fundamental to LISP. In other words, these techniques form the foundation of LISP. Concerns with scaling and operational properties of these techniques have been raised many times before (both at the previous BOF, as well as on the RRG mailing list). Yet the LISP proponents still did not adequately address these concerns. Unless these concerns are adequately addressed, claiming that LISP is an appropriate solution to the problems discussed at the IAB's October 2006 Routing and Addressing Workshop is nothing more than a proof by an emphatic assertion. Addressing these concerns does *not* require LISP protocol specs. Addressing these concerns does *not* require experimentation with LISP protocols either. Addressing these concerns does *not* require interoperable LISP implementations. Therefore, forming a WG to "work on the design on the LISP base protocol , the LISP+ALT mapping system, LISP Interworking and LISP multicast", and to "encourage and support interoperable LISP implementations as well as defining requirements for alternate mapping systems" (as was proposed in Dave's e-mail) is *not* going to address these concerns. Unless the concerns I mentioned above are adequately addressed, LISP can not be accepted as a feasible/practical approach towards routing scalability. Therefore, unless and until these concerns are adequately addressed, it is totally premature to form LISP WG. Yakov. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
